In Charles Darwin’s footsteps (new movie designed to bring creation message to secular audience)

CMI ^ | April 22, 2009 | Carl Wieland

[allmendream]

I am in the productive field of Biology. The information we use in our work is informed by biological evolution.

Trying to understand biology without evolution is like trying to understand the current political situation with no knowledge of history.

Heb 11:1

[Boxen]

"Darwkins that he’s trying to invent a whole new vocabulary so scientists can avoid using the language of design when they report on God’s creation!"

I googled "Dawkins Vocabulary" but couldn't find a corroborating source for this claim. Help me out?

Darwood.

You know, I'm going to bother you about this until you give me an answer. Referring to Darwin as "Darwood" not only demeans your argument, but demeans you as well. It's childish, and I think you know that.

[Cedric]

I am in the productive field of Biology.

Feel free to tell us how smart you are, again.

It's been a couple of days.

[stormer]

Wow! Fifty-two minutes of Tee Vee certainly ought to be able to shift a 150 year old scientific paradigm. Speaking of which, I took a look at the trailer, and the production (of it, at least) appears to be fairly well done. Funny though, no where in it do they mention that it's not a straight history, but instead an insidious attempt to advance religious propaganda - typical creationist deceit.

I would certainly be the first to say that poor Charles made a few mistakes along the way, but the overarching fundamentals of his work are still relevant and have provided the foundation on which some of the most civilization's most profound science has been built. But need I point out that other advancements have had similar trajectories - the Wright brothers come to mind.

[Cedric]

China?

Oh ya, that’s where you can bribe the peasants to find missing links for you.

[GodGunsGuts]

What a crock. I have quotes from scientist after scientist (you know, the ones with actual PhDs) admitting that evolution is superfluous to productive science. Sorry, dreamer, Darwood’s fanciful creation myth is of no practical use to real scientists (except, perhaps, in the imagination of Richard Dawkins and a few other Evo-losers).

Nothing makes sense in biology except in the light of DESIGN.

Romans 1:20

[stormer]

Allow me. Allmendream is smarter than you. I’ll remind you again later if need be.

[Cedric]

an insidious attempt to advance religious propaganda

Wait...I thought you guys were fine with Creationism as long as we didn't "try to bring it into the classroom."

Careful, your mask is slipping.

[allmendream]

And yet the vast majority of scientists with PhD’s accept the theory of evolution through natural selection.

In fact the more educated you are, especially in science, the more likely you are to accept the theory.

Making Creationism the refuge of the uneducated (that would be you) and the ill educated (that would be your target audience).

[Cedric]

Your affection for Allmendream is duly noted.

[stormer]

Quite right. Although I abhor ignorance wherever it may be, I'll let you embrace your superstition. But at least have the courage to call productions like this what they are - insidious religious propaganda.

[Vaduz]

Charles Darwin’s footsteps lead to UFO ...

[stormer]

"Making Creationism the refuge of the uneducated (that would be you) and the ill educated (that would be your target audience)."

[count-your-change]

Benedict may be a smart fellow but that hardly makes him a final authority on what is science and Scripture.

[Non-Sequitur]

A new movie is intended to shake large numbers out of their evolution-based complacency and hostility toward the God of the Bible.

So....then it's a comedy?

[stormer]

This one's more appropriate...

[Constitution Day]

Thanks for the heads up, I’ll be sure to avoid this flight of fancy.

[allmendream]

Nor did I suggest that the Pope is a “final authority”.

What I engaged in was a “reductio ad absurdum” of the typical creationist argument that if one accepts the theory of evolution then one necessarily has an animosity towards the God of the Bible.

The Pope accepts the theory, does it follow then by Creationist “logic” that the Pope hates the God of the Bible?

[steve-b]

LOL — yeah, right, some peasant is going to produce convincing fake evidence.

[edweena]

There is a simple requirement to be met for the theory of intelligent design to drive out the theory of evolution as the working hypothesis for those doing scientific research.

Scientists who believe that the intelligent design theory is correct must come up with hypotheses based on the tenets of intelligent design that advance our knowledge beyond the current limits and prove these hypotheses are true with repeatable experiments. It’s not enough to argue that our current knowledge can be explained by both theories, nor is it enough to pick holes in the theory of evolution. They need to show the superiority of intelligent design in expanding scientific research beyond the limits imposed by the theory of evolution.

For working scientists, one theory or the other is just a handy perspective. If you can show them how intelligent design is holding them back from advancing their understanding of their discipline, they will be happy to adopt a new frame.